- (1.) THE present petition has been instituted mainly for the reason that initially an ex parte order was passed by respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1952" ). As the order was ex parte, an application was preferred by the present petitioner for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order under section 7-B of the Act, 1952. Thereafter, no decision has been taken upon this review application, preferred under Section 7-B of the act, 1952 and directly an attachment order has been passed by respondent No. 3 dated October 10, 2007 (Annexure 10 to the memo of present petition ). Two accrued rights vested in the present petitioner have been taken away; firstly the review application preferred by the petitioner under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 ought to have been decided on merits and secondly right to prefer an appeal under Section 7-B of the Act. 1952 has also been taken away because no final order has been passed after the review application has been preferred by the petitioner and therefore, the order at Annexure 10 deserves to be quashed and set aside and matter may be remanded before respondent No. 3 for final decision on review application, preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order passed by respondent No. 3 under the Act, 1952.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has mainly submitted that the petitioner has not preferred the application in a proper format of review application and hence respondent No. 3 has not decided the same. Likewise, the petitioner has not properly mentioned the Section under which the review application has been preferred and, thereafter, an order of attachment dated october 10, 2007 at Annexure 10 has been passed and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1952 were initiated by the concerned respondent authorities; (ii) It appears that a decision was already arrived at by respondent No. 3 initially against which a review application was preferred by the present petitioner, alleging therein, that the same was an ex parte order. Thus, his application is falling under Section 7-B of the act, 1952; (iii) It also appears that this application has not been decided and no final order has been passed upon this application, preferred by the present petitioner, which is falling under the compass of Section 7-B of the Act, 1952; (iv) It appears that without deciding the application, preferred under Section 7-B of the act, 1952, a warrant of attachment has been issued by respondent No. 3 dated October 10, 2007 (Annexure 10 to the memo of present petition ). (v) It appears that this is an error apparent on the face of the record. (vi) It appears that the review application preferred by the present petitioner, though it may not be in a proper format, looking to the pith and substance of that application or looking to the contents of that application, an experienced officer, who is absolutely working under the Act, 1952, should have appreciated that basically the application preferred by the petitioner is falling within the four corners of section 7-B of the Act, 1952, which is for nothing but for review of the ex parte order. He ought not to have brushed aside this application without deciding the same. Such a practice adopted by respondent No. 3 deserves to be deprecated. (vii) It also appears that the review application, in fact, is pending, but, the orders have been passed for freezing of the bank account by way of attachment order. Even there is one more order at Annexure 15 to the memo of present petition dated June 4, 2008. ;